In the hands of a writer sick with ambition, these subjects might have become the occasion for a meditation on the virtues of discipline; for a writer poisoned by sentiment, they might have become treacly elegy. But Ebert seems these days just to be writing because he really wants to tell you how it is, and it’s very good writing indeed.1

1Which is not to say that I’ve never felt misled by his movie criticism. Not to go too deeply into things, but I would leap to play the dour Siskel to his thumbs up for Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull and Synecdoche, New York.

This is officially an award-winning blog

HNN, Best group blog: "Witty and insightful, the Edge of the American West puts the group in group blog, with frequent contributions from an irreverent band.... Always entertaining, often enlightening, the blog features snazzy visuals—graphs, photos, videos—and zippy writing...."

25 comments

It is good writing. The food/eating post was moving; I’ll check out the latter.

Oh, and I’d like to cosign the issues you take with his criticism. He tends to overrate big pop spectacles and blockbusters. And he loved Crash, a craptacular movie that made me want to set myself on fire.

Sure, Ebert’s critcism is often sympathetic to big-budget spectaculars/typical Hollywood garbage, but he was the first critic of any stripe I regularly read and thus somewhat instrumental in developing my understanding how criticism can work. And his “Great Movies” column was really helpful for a teenager trying to find something good to watch. So despite the hard time people sometimes give Ebert for being the epitome of mainstream movie criticism, I have a bit of a soft spot for him. (I’ve probably never seen a full episode of his TV show, though, so I can’t speak to that.)

Also, he’s really funny. Daniel and I have purposefully been watching awful movies lately for the fun of it and then we usually go read Ebert’s reviews afterward. They are consistently the most hilarious.

Crash and American Beauty represent the kind of smug liberal bullshit that gives smug liberal bullshitters a bad name.

I used to find Siskel and Ebert unfailingly reliable when they agreed that a movie was good. That ended even before Siskel’s illness, though. Watching them, I had the feeling sometimes that they felt compelled to recommend movies even if they couldn’t actually think of much good to say about them.

i like the ebert article. but codrescu i find one of the most loathesome, repellent blights on god’s green earth. whenever he comes on npr, i turn off npr and send my donation to fox news corp. honestly, that guy gives me deep insight into why many people hate liberals.

With Codrescu, I don’t know if tastes differ, because I hardly ever listen to the content. It’s the voice, the eccentric pronunciation, the cadence, that I enjoy. And I suppose I’m a bit biased because he had the fine discernment to move to the Ozark foothills post-Katrina.

Having never really paid him any attention before it became possible to read his reviews online, and only occasionally doing so after that, I’ve been kind of surprised (perhaps baselessly) at what a good essayist Ebert turns out to be. Odd, maybe, that blogging has given him a regular outlet for longer writing than his reviewing gig does, but welcome nonetheless.

For years Roger Ebert has been by far the most credible and thorough film critic in the field, and now that he seemingly spends all his time reviewing, blogging and tweeting, he may be one of the most prolific and enjoyable writers today.

Also, Synecdoche, New York is indeed one of the best films of the decade. I challenge someone to name a more high-minded film from the past ten years.

Haven’t seen nor heard from Mr. Ebert since the TV show ‘Siskel[?] & Ebert’ was on, many moons ago (perhaps closer to a dog’s age).

I highly recommend Mr. Herzog’s “Encounters at the End of the World,” and if you watch it, make sure to stick around for the credits because the movie is “For Roger Ebert.” Is there some kind of inside joke here? some history betwixt the two, or is this a generalized remark (I can’t think whether it is positive or negative)?

Ebert’s openness towards lowbrow genres (most hilariously evidenced by his screenplays for Russ Meyer) used to be a genuine rarity among mainstream reviewers (this was back when Maltin was more of a animation scholar), and I’ve always respected him for that.